DanielCC wrote:

iwpoe wrote:

Hmm, does that objection have teeth?

No, hence its being abandoned even by those who accepted Kant's other objections as decisive. Virtually no serious philosopher of religion mentions it as anything more than a curiosity these days.

But, I mean, I did want to know why we'd think the PM has all perfections.

884heid wrote:

DanielCC wrote:

 No, hence its being abandoned even by those who accepted Kant's other objections as decisive. Virtually no serious philosopher of religion mentions it as anything more than a curiosity these days.

Is the main reason for the lack of acceptance of this argument is because almost no philosopher adheres to noumena/phenomena distinction and so on? I am guessing that one would have to assume his metaphysics to entertain that objection if i am not mistaken. 
 

Even with that distinction it wouldn't make much difference - philosophers would insist that Kant give some further reasoning as to why a necessary being must be a perfect one. Even then Kant has to proof that the theist had no other way of deriving the Divine Attributes on their own terms.

(Kant probably came up with this muddled objection in reaction to Leibniz who on occasioned used the plausibility of the PSR Cosmological Argument as a way of supporting the OA's possibility premise)

DanielCC wrote:

iwpoe wrote:

Hmm, does that objection have teeth?

No, hence its being abandoned even by those who accepted Kant's other objections as decisive. Virtually no serious philosopher of religion mentions it as anything more than a curiosity these days.

It srikes me how different are the views in english-speaking  philosophy and in french philosophy. Kant's claim about the dependence of the ontological and the cosmological argument is often said to be worth defending by brilliant philosophers in my country.
 

It wouldn't surprise me. I would chalk it up to most of the innovative philosophy of religion work in the last 50 years being done in the Anglosphere, though.

(For what it's worth, I write this as someone able to read in both languages, without any ill will towards French philosophy.)

I don't think there are many defence of this kantian thesis in french but I will search.
It should not be surprising because philosophy of religion and natural theology is virtually dead in my country. The last but one good book about it is Garrigou-Lagrange's book.
As far as I know, Kant's critique, here, is taken to be authoritative and a mortal blow to natural theology by academic philosophers and in  faculty of theology. In their view,
For example, André Comte Sponville in his book about atheism tell us that he thinks Kant is right without further arguments. (https://books.google.fr/books?id=jtlMBfV30BgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=andr%C3%A9+comte+sponville+atheism&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjPrdG-6tnLAhXGzRQKHRelB0gQ6AEIMTAA#v=onepage&q=kant&f=false    page 80)
In a science magazine, Luc Ferry said that Kant made a strong refutation of the 3 types of arguments for God's existence.

Edit:
for french speakers, Frederic Guillaud explains the influence of Kant in continental philosophy in this video. It is a bit long, though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoB1814Ww38

Last edited by Jean65 (3/25/2016 8:34 am)